Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Entwistle is in court and is conferring with Weinstein.Judge is on the bench and asked for a side bar – it’s pretty lengthy.

I’m pretty amazed at how empty the court has been.

Fabbri calls Kim Puig to the stand: Marketing professional. She owns the house that Rachel and Lillian were killed in - 6 Cubs Path. She lived at the house for 10 years. She rented the property in January 2006 to the Enwistles’.

She identifies the home in a picture.

She identifies Neil Entwistle.

The lease was a 3-month lease -$2700 per month with auto renewal if all terms were met.

4-bedroom house. The attached garage had an entrance into the house with a keypad both inside and outside the house.

She identifies the garage door openers from the house that had been turned over to the Entwistles’.

Her family all had the code as well as the next-door neighbors, the Ramseys’.

She identifies the keys to the house.

April 2006, she was contacted by the police. She gave police a copy of the lease and they finger printed her at that time.

Cross - Page

Re: References? There was one.

She is shown reference of Maureen Renaud

She set up the rental agreement with Neil and Rachel.

It was a pleasant conversation about how heating oil was to be paid.

They seemed to be a lovely couple? I met them briefly

They exchanged pleasantries, told them they could call if they needed anything.

Received $8100 from the Entwistles.

Identifies cashier's checks: one for $2700, one for $5400.

She had 2 months rent (first and last).

She had some concerns about Entwistle's ability to pay, so they only had a 3-month lease.

You knew that they were relocating to the Hopkinton area? Yes.

They had both relocated to the US? Yes.

They entered to secure the property and there were some boxes in the basement still not unpacked.

You wanted to get the Entwistle’s property out of the house?

The house had been vacated as of the end of January? Yes.

You wanted to re-rent it? She was going through eviction since she had a legal tenant, nothing in writing from Entwistle.

Page asks questions about Puig not wanting Entwistle's property. She testifies that she didn't want to get rid of it until it was legal to do so.

She did not remove anything from the house.

Somebody removed the property based on the court order as provided.

Somebody as her agent removed property. She is not aware of details; she had a lawyer handling it. He took things to secure them.

She packed some things, did not remove anything from house.

Packed baby clothes, paper, mail. Marked boxes with contents. Some of the property was taken out of the property.

The rest of the house was intact, as you had shown it? Fingerprint dust.

She eventually got the property back and was able to sell it.

Your attorney was Michael Fee? Yes.

He was your contact with the attorneys and Mr. Weinstein. Yes.

Neil Entwistle relinquished any claims? Yes.

It was between your attorneys? Yes.

Attorney Fee still has some boxes that were removed from the house? I don't know.

Exhibit 12:Cashiers' checks - signed by Rachel Entwistle. They cleared.

Re-direct:

The home was turned over to Kim in February 2006.

Why was the lease for 3-months, your understanding?

Objection – Sidebar

In terms of 3- month lease, who requested it? I did.

What was your reason? Based on conversations with the real estate agent.

Pamela Jackson on the stand: Welcome Wagon lady in Hopkinton.

She welcomed the Entwistle family in January.

She identifies Entwistle.

She recalls talking to Neil about their reason for renting. Neil said he wanted to test the area for jobs, schools, etc.

He told her that he was in insurance. Also told her he had plenty of money. And, that he had a BMW.

Entwistle told her he was self-employed in the insurance industry.

He asked about mom’s club, shopping and was interested in the local country club.

She said they appeared loving, attentive family.

Redirect

During the time you were at the house, what was the demeanor?

Both Rachel and Neil were very attentive to the baby, it was adorable.

Sidebar

Next witness: Michael Sheehan – Works for MA Port Authority. He works for the parking system at Logan airport.

Each transaction at the site is sent to a major computer systems that stores the records.

Fabbri puts up a diagram of the terminal and parking facilities at Logan, that Sheehan identifies.

Sheehan shows the main parking area and the “west garage”. Terminal E, by the garage, is the international terminal.

There are ticketing machines to enter the garages and payment is made at pay-on-foot machines in the walkways.

Pay-on-foot machine 666 is the one we are interested in.

ritanita -Pay on Foot 666! Evil machine!

Sheehan describes the parking ticket that is numbered; the car is also photographed and matches the plate to the ticket. When you pay, you are issued a receipt. You can pay by cash or credit card.

The plate being photographed is stored in a computer system with attached transaction report.

Cars are inventoried on a daily basis in the garages.

Where you asked to look into a particular plate record on January 20 and 21st? Yes.

Were you able to retrieve those records? Yes.

Photos are shown of Entwistle’s car entering and exiting the garage.

The transaction report tied to the car is identified as well as the credit card report.

The inventory report reflects the cars in the garage.

The parking ticket is identified, dated January 20th at time, 22:49:10.

The pay receipt is also identified.

Photos are shown of the BMW entering and leaving the parking garage.

Sidebar –

The car, with plate 65K W79 entered on the 20th at 8:14pm and left at 9:40pm.

The $8 parking fee was paid with a credit card.

Well, we sure as hell know when and where Neil was on the evening of the 20th!

Now we have information the camera was off-line on the 21st and not logging plates, however parking tickets were still be issued.

Surveillance cameras are scattered throughout the parking systems that capture folks at the pay-on-foot machine.

Redirect:Is the surveillance system synchronized to your system? No.

Next witness: Marianne Chandler – She also works for MassPort. She maintains the documents and videos of the parking garages.

The surveillance systems photos are time-stamped.

She identifies one of the videotapes from machine 666 from the 20th. They isolated the transaction and put it on CD.

Transaction took place on the 20th between 10:35pm and 10:36pm.

Cross by Weinstein

Did you prepare video and presentation? No/

Did you retrieve from the system? No, it's from the system.

When were you asked to do that? I don't remember exactly when?

Were you asked by police? State police? Police regularly stationed at airport? Yes.

Did you speak to Marty Robichaud? Yes.

You work with him to locate the tape he is looking for? Yes.

He was the only policeman and she worked with co-workers to locate the tape.

She was provided with a pay-on-foot machine and time number.

She did not know why they wanted the tape.

She went through the library of tapes? They keep a log of the number of the tape in the machines which helps give them the correct VCR tape.

It has a lot more images on it? Yes.

In fact, the camera records multiple events? Yes.

Many images are captured? Yes.

Requires a special machine to play it? Yes.

And you need to make a separate tape? I didn't do it, but yes.

When this was all done, exhibit 17, did it come into your hands? No.

You were called to be a record keeper? Yes.

You saw the tape to come here and testify and that's how you could identify Mr. Entwistle? Yes.

Next witness: Julie-Anne Aloise, Investigator with Citizen’s Bank. She investigates financial crimes against the bank and she works with law enforcement.

ATM associated with trust account? No, no debit or ATM transactions with this account.

Next witness: Carol Cox – Customer Service Supervisor for British Airway. She make sure planes are loaded on time. She worked starting at 5:15 am and was preparing a flight to the UK at 8:15.

She was at the ticket counter at 6am. Ms. Catano was handling sales and directed Neil to her. She said on that day, BA computers were down.

Neil wanted to purchase a ticket and she couldn’t issue a ticket without a computer and told him to call the reservation system to get an e-ticket.

He was pleasant; he didn’t have anything with him. He came back and said he had a ticket. She asked him to wait to board so she could verify the ticket.

He had no luggage and he boarded around 8am.

Cross - Weinstein

You encountered Neil Entwistle at Logan Airport? Yes.

Because BA’s computers were down, Mr. Entwistle had to use the phone and had to pay a premium ($20)? Yes.

You have put together all these documents you talked about for a half hour? I didn’t put them together.

You had to deal with him specially because your computer system was down? Yes.

You told him to use the 800 number? Yes.

You had a pleasant enough chat with him? Yes.

He was able to get a ticket by calling? Yes.

You couldn’t confirm it, you had him wait, he didn’t hassle you, waited patiently, boarded on the plane? Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes!

She was able to confirm the E-ticket? Yes.

At the end of all of this you can tell us is that Neil Entwistle bought a ticket and boarded a plane and flew to England? Yes.

ritanita - Snarky! All he had to say was, "no questions"!!!!!

Thank you....

ritanita

Next witness: Mary Hannon – Customer Service Manager for British Airways, 3 years at Logan. She oversees the operations for compliance. She also maintains custodial records.

To board a plane you would have to have a ticket, passport and depending on your destination, a visa.

She describes how British Airways passenger list, seat list, catering list. They maintain a flight file on all flights whether computer generated or by hand. The records are generated at the time of transactions.

She was asked to confirm the transaction made by Entwistle. She confirms the records she is shown:

21st of January at 7:06am, Entwistle purchased the e-ticket according to the call center records - $787, one way fare paid for by Visa credit card.

Cross:

Because BA’s computers were down, Mr. Entwistle had to use the phone and had to pay a premium ($20)? Yes.

You have put together all these documents you talked about for a half hour? I didn’t put them together.

At the end of all of this you can tell us is that Neil Entwistle bought a ticket and boarded a plane and flew to England? Yes.

Snarky! All he had to say was, "no questions"!!!!!

Next witness: Joanna Gately, Rachel’s close friend. They met at Holy Cross in 1998. Most of her free time with spent with Rachel. She went to the west coast for work for 2 years.

She could not attend the wedding

They communicated via e-mail and letters during 2003 and 2005.

Rachel came home 2004 and they spent a week together.

She went to England April 2005 after the birth of Lillian.

She met Neil and 2004 and saw him again when in England.

She reconnected with Rachel when Rachel came home to live with her mother. Joanna spent most weekends with Rachel. They socialized with other friends.

She said that Neil, Rachel and Lillian had a very loving relationship. It was a time of transition for them.

January 2006, she went with them when they signed the lease on the house and helped them during the move-in.

The week of the 16th, she and Rachel communicated via text messages. On the 19th they spoke for a half hour and they planned to visit on Saturday.

Saturday. Joanna and her sister Maureen went to Hopkinton. They were to arrive between 4 and 7pm. She called Rachel to let her no they were late. She couldn’t reach Rachel. They made several additional and left messages.

They arrived at the house about 7:20pm. They pulled into the driveway and went to the front door. They rang the bell and knocked, but got no response.

There was a light on in the foyer and the master bedroom.

Joanna is identifying the photo of the Hopkinton house and where she saw lights on.

After getting no answer, she found a note in the door handle. Priscilla, who had been to the house earlier, wrote the note.

Joanna called Priscilla. Joanna and Maureen decided to stay at the house. They went to the back and tried to open the slider door and the basement door. They also checked the porch area and couldn’t get in.

Joanna climbed on an electrical block to look in the bedroom. The blinds were open, but couldn’t see anything.

She spoke to Priscilla most of the night. Priscilla called the police and the police came to the house. There were two officers. She spoke with Sgt. Sutton and they walked to the front door.

The police then tried to open the door with a credit card. The other officer used a Blockbuster card and got the door open.

The girls stayed outside. The police came out after a few moments.

Then Joanna asked to take Sally the dog out to go to the bathroom.

Sally was in the family room in a crate. She took the dog out for a few minutes. She brought Sally in and put her back in the crate.

They all left the house. The police closed the door to the house.

When getting the dog, Joanna noticed a counter-top. The portable phone was missing and the phone jack was disconnected from the wall.

She identifies a photo of the counter top and the phone base and unplugged phone jack.

When the police and the girls were outside, Joanna was on the phone with Priscilla. She passed the phone to Sgt. Sutton.

The girls sat in the car outside the house, waiting for the Entwistle’s car to pull up.

At 6am, Joanna spoke with Priscilla. Maureen and Joanna drove around looking for the BMW for about 2 hours and then went back to the house at 8am.

Joanna walked over to the neighbors and spoke with them and then returned back to the house and called Priscilla. The neighbor then came to the house and opened the garage door because she had the code.

They all entered the house and got Sally again and took her outside. They went back in to find the food dish. The found the dog food downstairs. They fed Sally upstairs. The neighbor left and they left the garage doors open.

Maureen and Joanna stayed in the family room with Sally. They did walk through the house.

She noticed the TV was on in the living room. They went upstairs to the master bedroom. There was also music playing in Lillian’s room.

She looked in the walk-in closet to see if anything was missing. She checked the bathroom – the toilet had been used, but had not been flushed.

Maureen and Joanna went back to the family room and made a few calls to Rachel’s friends, but couldn’t reach them. She left messages.

They called Priscilla and waited in the living room for Priscilla to arrive. Priscilla arrived a few hours later. Joe and Priscilla arrived together.

Joanna and Maureen then left the house and went to the neighbor’s house.

They then drove around again looking for the car. They returned to the house, early afternoon.

Terry Pratt came by.

Priscilla, Joe and the girl’s waited outside for a few hours. They left to get dinner.

At about 5 o’clock they all went to the Hopkinton Police Department.

They spoke with detectives and were finger printed. They eventually learned about Rachel and Lillian.

No further questions.

Cross - Page

Page recaps the background of their friendship as was stated on direct.

They kept in touch by e-mail? Yes.

Rachel and Neil put up a website and she could find out places they went, things they did. They posted photos? Yes.

She first met Neil in 2004 when Rachel and Neil visited? Yes.

They were a loving couple? Yes.

Rachel and Neil had good jobs, a nice place to live, a nice BMW, Rachel was a nice, friendly, social person. She and Neil would often do things with their friends? Yes.

She went to England after Lillian was born. Went with Priscilla. It was a nice visit. Neil was gone a lot and it was mostly between the two women and the baby? Yes.

There was talk then about the move to the US? Yes.

When Rachel first returned, she didn’t have a car. She had to ask someone to take her around or borrow a car? Yes.

She visited with Rachel every Monday during the day. She would visit with Rachel and Lillian? Yes.

She would watch Lillian while Neil and Rachel went elsewhere on the property? Yes.

She told the police that Sally was a pampered dog, they just loved the dog.

When the police left, you didn’t leave right away? No.

Then, you decided to go to Dunkin Donuts? Yes.

You only lived 45 minutes away? No, more like one hour.

Then you decided to go back to Cubs Path Way...

Puts up the picture of the house and asks Joanna to identify her car - a Ford Focus. Front and back seats.

It was cold out? We started it up to heat it from time to time.

You went to the gas station and went back to the house? Yes.

They went back to Cubs Path a little after 2, it’s uncomfortable, you’re warming up the car a little? Yes.

Page continues to testify, OOPS! I meant ask long questions reiterating the testimony.

When they went back in the house there was classical music on? Yes 102.5? Don’t know.

Page continues to stress that they stayed all night at the house.

Page tells the witness what happened after the Matterazzo’s arrived and the witness agrees.

From the time that you knew Rachel and Neil you never knew of any financial or marital problems they might have had? Yes.

They were a loving and devoted, happy and excited with their lives. Yes.

Re-Direct

She left the note in the kitchen when they first went in with the police. She asked permission to do that.

She didn’t go home that night because the situation was not like Rachel and she was concerned. Priscilla was also concerned. Her conversations with Priscilla made her more concerned. Her coming to and goings raised their concerns.

It was Rachel’s idea to lease the BMW? I thought it was Neil’s.

Re-Cross

Rachel and Neil did things as a couple? Right.

They had a BMW in England? Right.

Rachel signed the lease? Right.

There’s nothing wrong with owning a BMW? Right.

Ritanita - I am getting SO annoyed with the defense. They are doing all the testifying for the witnesses. The problem is that the witness has to listen carefully for slight variations in the language. It also puts words into the witness’s mouths...

I'm hearing loving, devoted couple, loving parents from the defense attorneys and not from the witnesses. I'd bet that if the defense attorneys asked for witnesses to use their own verbiage, it might vary from the defense script.

Next witness: Aaron O’Neil. Police patrolman, he was on patrol the night of the 2Oth. It took 10 minutes to get to the house after he was dispatched. Sgt. Sutton was also dispatched.

O’Neil saw two females standing in the front. Sutton was around the back of the house.

He waited out front till Sutton came back.

Both officers decided to open the front door. The door was locked. Sutton opened the door with O’Neil’ Blockbuster card.

O’Neil heard a TV set playing. The officers checked the first floor area together. They noticed a dog in a pen and toys strewn around.

They split up and Sutton went upstairs, O’Neil went downstairs. There were no vehicles in the garage and the garage door was down.

He checked the entire downstairs and found nothing out of the ordinary. He then went back upstairs to the kitchen area and Sutton was there also.

They saw a digital camera and they turned it on. This last entry was date stamped on the 19th.

Joanna asked if she could leave a note, which they ok’d and she then took the dog out.

She asked if she could keep the dog overnight. The police said no.

O’Neil identifies photos of the kitchen area…the notepad that Joanna left the note on as well as the digital camera and a cell phone on the kitchen table.

Now identifies photos of the basement and garage area.

Cross - Weinstein

You went to Cubs Path because you were told to. Yes.

Did you know you would be meeting with Mr. Sutton? Yes.

He was going to be in charge? Yes He’s my supervisor.

You got there first? No, Sgt. Sutton got there first.

You met the ladies there? Yes.

Sutton spoke to the ladies before entering the house.

Weinstein asks the witness if he remembers hearing Miss Gately say she was there two hours late to have dinner with the Entwistles’.

Weinstein asks further questions about what he overheard of the conversations. He says he doesn’t. Weinstein shows him a report to refresh his memory and asks again if he remembers hearing Joanna Gately said she was there to have dinner with Rachel, Neil, and Lillian. No.

That she said she was two hours late. No.

He was there to find out if there was anyone in the house in need of assistance. Yes.

He had to get inside. He had to get into the locked door. Does he remember Sgt. Sutton say he’d get into the house as long as he didn’t have to break in? No.

Sutton tried to jimmy the lock with a credit card? Yes, it worked.

Did he use a credit card OF HIS OWN to get by the lock? Not his own.

Weinstein is getting snarkier by the witness!

LinZbee - He is now in full defense attorney mode. Do they take classes in law school to perfect this attitude?

There’s a reason you used a Blockbuster card is that it’s more pliable, softer. Yes, correct.

And that’s what you did? No, Sgt. Sutton did. With my card.

Weinstein reiterates the manner in which the officers went around the house to ascertain if anybody was there.

You looked? Yes.

You looked carefully? Yes.

It was complete? Yes.

Any indication of blood on the first floor? No.

You picked up a camera (to see if anybody was in the house)?

The mission was to see if you could find a person. No, a time.

Weinstein goes through how the witness investigated the basement.

He found nobody, no signs of foul play in the basement. Yes.

Sgt. Sutton didn’t find anything upstairs. Correct.

When they left they home, they had found nothing to make them believe something was amiss.

Court adjourned.

Wednesday’s are abbreviated schedules and court will be in session from 9 am till 1 pm.

Many thanks again to Ritanita for her contributions and to LinZbee for the insightful and very funny comment!

T&T FRIENDS

CRIME NEWS FEED

DISCLAIMER:

The expressions in this blog are our opinions or the opinions of our featured writers. Please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following the blog articles are the opinions and sole property of the commenter's and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.